I dunno. I think Nagasu earned her 2008 title fair and square. The past two years, though, the judging has been suspect...I feel that since there hasn't been a clear leader, there's a bit of influence going on BTS. Oh well, whatever.

It seems that some fans won't give Mirai any credit at all. When she wins they say she should have lost.
When she beats their favorite they say she is lucky because she is able to charm the judges and fans with her skating. Isn't that just being a better performer and one of the goals of a good skating performance?

The comparison that can't be ignored is that Mirai scored 188 in front of her Natl judges and the same in Vancouver. She received no Natls boost at all and appeared to be judged more harshly than Sasha, Ashley and Rachael.

The skater who was obviously given a huge boost at Natls was Flatt. Her scores from Natls were much higher than her international scores. Her fans don't like to admit this and US Skating judges should feel somewhat embarrassed.

The international judges did send US Skating a strong and clear message. Poor posture with weak or average positions, slow awkward looking spins, and skating with the speed of a junior skater will NOT be given huge scores against the world's best skaters. They seemed to notice her mule kick as well and to the everlasting chagrin of her fans did not think her flips were acceptable.

If Rachael was disheartend by her Olympic scores she should talk to someone honest from US Skating. They should be straight with her and explain to her she is NOT a 200 point skater under fair and unbiased judging. When she is clean she is about a 180 point skater.

She needs to understand this and work on things if she wants scores like Mao. Yea, 200 points for Mao feels OK, but Rachael? Is Rachael as good as Mao and does her skating compare favorably to Mao's?

When we look at scores from Vancouver and then compare Rachael's skating with Mao - the scores in Vancouver make perfect sense. Rachael must improve aspects of her skating before she will get 200 points at major international events.

Seven nice triples will possibly win an "ice jumping" contest. But better overall quality on the other elements of skating is required under the current IJS.

Exactly my intuition about Worlds, Tiny! You could see the confusion/disappointment in her face as she rec'd her scores at Olys. Miki's LP was laborious and slow and no fun to watch. I think Miki should quit competing. Her gala skates are so much better. She looks happy when not competing! This woman is a world champion and has been on the scene a long time. The judges do give points for that.

And they clearly like Laura Lepisto a lot. She certainly LOOKS great and is a pleasant skater but technically? I think we will see great effort from Flatt and while she is never going to look like Sasha, she will improve her line and her posture. I really enjoyed her spunky SP and though there are more talented skaters around, she does deliver a clean and joyous program. It is so great to see beautiful Alissa do her spins/spirals but its not worth watching the nerves/splatfests for moments of beauty. Kwan was great because she was so "solid." Imagine what Rachael might have accomplished if she were a full time skater like most of them?

You're forgetting that Laura DID have the jumps in Vancouver though - she did 3t-3t, 3lz, and two 3lo in her LP which is competitive among the top ladies. Also are you trying to say that Flatt is a better SKATER than Lepisto? I mean I get that she usually lands her jumps but IMO Laura deserves her high PCS. I actually found it really funny that Flatt and Leonova got higher PCS than Mirai in the SP in Vancouver - I mean honestly? The scores were much more fair at Worlds where Leonova got 48 for her LP PCS, Rachael got 53, and Mirai got 57. Rachael's components just aren't up to snuff with ladies like Miki and Laura and that is why she lost to them. Normally she does well because her high TES makes up for her slightly lower PCS, but I actually think those PCS are deserved, I mean Ashley doesn't get higher PCS than mid 50s for her LPs internationally so why should Rachael? I mean don't get me wrong, Rachael is a great skater, but she is a technician, her strength is in her jumps, not her skating.

I have been thinking some more about the music factor, and this is what I came up with. What every successful spectator sport needs is an emotional hook to draw in the attention of the audience. Baseball is a very exciting sport to watch because a baseball game is packed solid with little emotional peaks and valleys, with crescendos and diminuendos, and occasionally a cymbal-crashing climax.

The base-runner leans off first base. Is the hit-and-run on? Here comes the pitch. The catcher has called for a pitch-out! The runner is dead meat! Horray for the home team!

Without that emotional commitment, it is just some overgrown boys hitting a ball with a stick.

In figure skating, never mind "artistry," I think the role of the music is to provide the setting for that kind of emotional commitment on the part of the audience.

Hongbo Zhao flings Xue Shen halfway across the rink -- OK.

Hongbo Zhao flings Xue Shen halfway across the rink to the achingly beautiful strains of Nessun Dorma -- not a dry eye in the house!

I think you have something there, Math. I know I wouldn't be as enthusiastic a skating fan if not for the music--after all, I don't feel this way about gymnastics, and they even have a floor exercise to music (but I can't imagine even Nastia doing a floor exercise to, say, Rachmaninoff).

I don't know how to do double quotes, but Princess, I absolutely agree with you that many skaters peak way past the typical "winning" age, and Kristi is a supreme example. Certainly Kurt is as well. It isn't just that his technique got more exciting, but he also made a greater contribution to skating. His innovative use of footwork and the way he exploits music have definitely raised the bar for eligible skaters, in part because he has inspired choreographers who work with those skaters. Even Michelle and Irina show the truth of your remark. If they had stopped skating after their first Olympics, they would merely have been a pair of promising skaters with good jumps and (in Michelle's case) delightful artistry--what were their names again? With a longer career and added artistic maturity, every year they added to the luster of their names.

At the bottom right of each post, where it says reply to post, etc., one of the options is "multiquote," indicated by a quotation mark and a plus. (For some older browsers, like mine, this is hidden under the next line and hard to access. )

Just click this for every post the you want to quote, and when the reply to post dialogue box appears it will have all the posts there. You can then insert comments between posts.

Alternatively, you can do it by hand. Type [*quote] (remove *), then copy and paste what you want to quote, then put [/quote] at the end.

She probably can't AP out of the first year chem class unless she got a 5 on the AP exam, even so, if she wants to go to med school eventually, she would need to take the 31 series. Lectures, mandatory sessions with TA, plus lab, plus everyone's gunning for the top spots, she just can't afford to skate and go to school full time. .

If that's a potential goal, yeah, she may want to have straight A's.

Originally Posted by FlattFan

Let's face it, most of her HS classmates aren't smart. .

You mean her high school was not that good?

Originally Posted by FlattFan

I know a lot of students took the easier route and went to Santa Clara University to fulfill the chem requirements. Even full time stanford students took the easier way out.

I don't quite get the context. Could you please explain a little more? Does Stanford allow you to go to another college to get certain credits, like taking summer courses?

The skater who was obviously given a huge boost at Natls was Flatt. Her scores from Natls were much higher than her international scores. Her fans don't like to admit this and US Skating judges should feel somewhat embarrassed.

The international judges did send US Skating a strong and clear message. Poor posture with weak or average positions, slow awkward looking spins, and skating with the speed of a junior skater will NOT be given huge scores against the world's best skaters. They seemed to notice her mule kick as well and to the everlasting chagrin of her fans did not think her flips were acceptable.

Let's see if the numbers give support to these opinions.

At U.S. Nationals, the judges gave Rachael PCSs of 61.71. At the Oympic she got 59.48.

At U.S. Nationals she got a total of 6.64 in GOEs. At the Olympics she got 6.40.

A I am not seeing a loud and clear message, to the embarrassment of U.S. judges, in these numbers.

So what was the difference in her total scores? Rachael lost a total of 6.72 for the two downgrades.

Now let's look at Mirai's scores at U.S. Nationals compared to Rachaels. Mirai beat Racahel in GOEs, 8.28 to 6.64, and (just barely) in PCS (61.78 to 61.71).

So why did Mirai lose both to Rachael and to Ashley in the LP? Mirai had three downgrades which cost her a whopping 10.26 points. (By the way, the judges disagreed with the tech panel at least on Mirai's 2A+3T. Five of the nine judges gave her positive GOEs, with two judges giving her a +2).

So in both of these events the result was wholly determined by downgrades which were discernible only to the tech specialist in slo-motion. I do not see any support for claims that the U.S. judges picked on Mirai and boosted Rachael, or that the international judges are in the business of sending sinister messages to anyone. Mirai got some unlucky calls at Nationals and Rachael got some unlucky calls at the Olympics, that's all.

At U.S. Nationals, the judges gave Rachael PCSs of 61.71. At the Oympic she got 59.48.

At U.S. Nationals she got a total of 6.64 in GOEs. At the Olympics she got 6.40.

A I am not seeing a loud and clear message, to the embarrassment of U.S. judges, in these numbers.

So what was the difference in her total scores? Rachael lost a total of 6.72 for the two downgrades.

Now let's look at Mirai's scores at U.S. Nationals compared to Rachaels. Mirai beat Racahel in GOEs, 8.28 to 6.64, and (just barely) in PCS (61.78 to 61.71).

So why did Mirai lose both to Rachael and to Ashley in the LP? Mirai had three downgrades which cost her a whopping 10.26 points. (By the way, the judges disagreed with the tech panel at least on Mirai's 2A+3T. Five of the nine judges gave her positive GOEs, with two judges giving her a +2).

So in both of these events the result was wholly determined by downgrades which were discernible only to the tech specialist in slo-motion. I do not see any support for claims that the U.S. judges picked on Mirai and boosted Rachael, or that the international judges are in the business of sending sinister messages to anyone. Mirai got some unlucky calls at Nationals and Rachael got some unlucky calls at the Olympics, that's all.

OK, I appreciate your analysis and thoughts on this.
But since you are the "mathman" others might look at a simpler or more direct comparison.

What was the point difference between Rachael's score at US Nats and at the Olympic?

Was it only a few points as you seem to be implying? Then your analysis and opinion would be spot on.
I don't think the point difference was so small and I don't believe you make a convincing case.

Mirai's score was almost identical at Natls and the Olympics.
Rachael's was not. There was a substancial difference.

It seems that some fans won't give Mirai any credit at all. When she wins they say she should have lost.
When she beats their favorite they say she is lucky because she is able to charm the judges and fans with her skating. Isn't that just being a better performer and one of the goals of a good skating performance?

The comparison that can't be ignored is that Mirai scored 188 in front of her Natl judges and the same in Vancouver. She received no Natls boost at all and appeared to be judged more harshly than Sasha, Ashley and Rachael.

The skater who was obviously given a huge boost at Natls was Flatt. Her scores from Natls were much higher than her international scores. Her fans don't like to admit this and US Skating judges should feel somewhat embarrassed.

The international judges did send US Skating a strong and clear message. Poor posture with weak or average positions, slow awkward looking spins, and skating with the speed of a junior skater will NOT be given huge scores against the world's best skaters. They seemed to notice her mule kick as well and to the everlasting chagrin of her fans did not think her flips were acceptable.

If Rachael was disheartend by her Olympic scores she should talk to someone honest from US Skating. They should be straight with her and explain to her she is NOT a 200 point skater under fair and unbiased judging. When she is clean she is about a 180 point skater.

She needs to understand this and work on things if she wants scores like Mao. Yea, 200 points for Mao feels OK, but Rachael? Is Rachael as good as Mao and does her skating compare favorably to Mao's?

The scores, IMO, were scaled accordingly so everyone was given that "Nationals" boost. Heck, the US is actually fairly reasonable about this compared to some other countries...

And this Olympics was strange as well. I actually expected the scores to be LOWER than usual but everyone got a scoring boost as if it were Grand Nationals or something. So Nagasu got a scoring boost in BOTH events. Rachel just got less of one at Olys (or more of one at Nats, however you wish to view it).

While I agree that Rachel benefitted from generous scoring at Nationals, I also think she got hosed at Olys. I won't go into detail as MM has basically gotten the point across already. So it worked both ways. I mean, other skaters got the benefit of the doubt (including Flatt herself in the SP!) so I didn't get that questionable DG in the FS. Glad to see they are making the DG less harsh but it still remains, and can still be used to hose down skaters at will. (I still think a jump that ends with a fall should be given 0 points, but I guess that's for another thread)

Rachel's been taking a LOT of heat lately, even being bashed from time to time. I don't think there is a need to dog on Flatt to build Nagasu up, however. Nor is it necessary to compare Flatt to Asada, both skaters are in different leagues. Can't expect a Honda Civic to outshine a Lexus convertible...

(Hondas are fine cars, very reliable - just like Rachel - but just don't stand out from the crowd.)

The scores, IMO, were scaled accordingly so everyone was given that "Nationals" boost. Heck, the US is actually fairly reasonable about this compared to some other countries...

And this Olympics was strange as well. I actually expected the scores to be LOWER than usual but everyone got a scoring boost as if it were Grand Nationals or something. So Nagasu got a scoring boost in BOTH events. Rachel just got less of one at Olys (or more of one at Nats, however you wish to view it).

While I agree that Rachel benefitted from generous scoring at Nationals, I also think she got hosed at Olys. I won't go into detail as MM has basically gotten the point across already. So it worked both ways. I mean, other skaters got the benefit of the doubt (including Flatt herself in the SP!) so I didn't get that questionable DG in the FS. Glad to see they are making the DG less harsh but it still remains, and can still be used to hose down skaters at will. (I still think a jump that ends with a fall should be given 0 points, but I guess that's for another thread)

Rachel's been taking a LOT of heat lately, even being bashed from time to time. I don't think there is a need to dog on Flatt to build Nagasu up, however. Nor is it necessary to compare Flatt to Asada, both skaters are in different leagues. Can't expect a Honda Civic to outshine a Lexus convertible...

(Hondas are fine cars, very reliable - just like Rachel - but just don't stand out from the crowd.)

My post was an answer to the post that implied Mirai did not deserve to win '08 Natls and that Flatt did.
So it is OK to "hose" Mirai but not examine scores a little closer?
Mathman makes an interesting point while artfully avoiding answering the true comparison which was in their final scores. Rachael received over 200 points at US Natls, a score we are more used to seeing Mao approach.

I don't quite get the context. Could you please explain a little more? Does Stanford allow you to go to another college to get certain credits, like taking summer courses?

I don't know anything about Rachael's specific high school, but it's often the case that in a large high school, or even a small local ones, there are a few kids who are both smarter and more highly motivated than the rest of the student body, and then when they get into college, especially a premium one such as Stanford, they're suddenly faced with a whole population of equivalent smarties, and excelling is a good deal more of a challenge than it was for them in high school. I suspect that scenario is true for Rachael.

As for the "cross-college" thing, I have a friend who took one course in another local college because it wasn't offered in her own college, but both were part of the same public system, so that may be a different case.

At U.S. Nationals, the judges gave Rachael PCSs of 61.71. At the Oympic she got 59.48.

At U.S. Nationals she got a total of 6.64 in GOEs. At the Olympics she got 6.40.

A I am not seeing a loud and clear message, to the embarrassment of U.S. judges, in these numbers.

So what was the difference in her total scores? Rachael lost a total of 6.72 for the two downgrades.

Now let's look at Mirai's scores at U.S. Nationals compared to Rachaels. Mirai beat Racahel in GOEs, 8.28 to 6.64, and (just barely) in PCS (61.78 to 61.71).

So why did Mirai lose both to Rachael and to Ashley in the LP? Mirai had three downgrades which cost her a whopping 10.26 points. (By the way, the judges disagreed with the tech panel at least on Mirai's 2A+3T. Five of the nine judges gave her positive GOEs, with two judges giving her a +2).

So in both of these events the result was wholly determined by downgrades which were discernible only to the tech specialist in slo-motion. I do not see any support for claims that the U.S. judges picked on Mirai and boosted Rachael, or that the international judges are in the business of sending sinister messages to anyone. Mirai got some unlucky calls at Nationals and Rachael got some unlucky calls at the Olympics, that's all.

Mathman, you know the way to my heart --- stats!
Anyway a nice set of those you got here. Though I have some differences in my calcualations.

I would agree with you MM that the downgrades was what did Rachael in. Her score of 117 is better than her score in Skate America even with the DGs, which tells me the judges would have scored her higher if not for those DGs. Also worth noting that the DGs made up 77 percent of the points she lost between Nationals and the Olympics.
Her SP is actually almost comparable. The main difference is grade of execution. So perhaps the difference of opinon between the national and international judges is how well Rachael completed those elements. So janetfan's points are supported there.

I appreciate your post but will have to look at it later as I am about to step out.

I hope you address the substancial difference in the total points Rachael received at Natls vs the Olympics.

I have to accept mathman's observation that different skaters wil get judged differently at various events.
The dg's are of no interest to me because as mm correctly states they are part of skating.
Let's address the issue here which is the total point spread. Then it is certainly interesting to look at how it was arrived at - but that doesn't change the huge point spread, does it

Unfortunately, I think it's Rachael's skating, that looks a bit heavy. I don't think it's her body; it's the way she executes her moves, and I hope she improves on her grace and artistry.

You hit the nail on the head. Even if your body isn't exactly "ideal", there are ways to get around it. For instance, Virtue and Moir are somewhat on the short side for dancers (as opposed to someone like Domnina) but they make up for it with wonderful lines and posture. Choosing appropriate clothes makes a HUGE difference; I remember going for deportment classes on how to dress according to your body and face shape.

Rachael needs better packaging. More flattering costumes certainly for a start. Choreography that suits her style; her Sing Sing Sing SP was a good match imo. While she's certainly not the ballerina type of skater a la Mao or Caroline, I think taking more ballet/ modern classes would be helpful in her posture and presentation (her posture really detracts from her skating imo). I'm not saying she has to skate like a baby ballerina; all I feel is that she could use more work on those aspects. Neither Shizuka Arakawa or Yuka Sato were ballerina-esque and they both did very well regardless.

She also seriously needs to work on her spins; maybe a masterclass with Lucinda Ruh? IJS favours all-round skaters with polish and to be a serious threat for the podium, Rachael needs to start improving other aspects of her skating apart from her jumps.

- Rachael deserved to win 2009 US nationals
- Mirai deserved to win 2010 US nationals
- Rachael deserved to be 6th in Vancouver, ahead of Lepisto but behind Ando

I actually thought Rachael's overall FS SCORE at the Olympics was pretty fair, I would have had it a few points higher, but I would have not downgraded either of her flips and just made the PCS lower. Her program components aren't up to snuff with Ando, Lepisto, Nagasu and very close to Rochette and Asada. I would have had her PCS be down with Makarova, Leonova, Korpi and Gedevanishvilli as that is who I see Rachael as comparable to at this point in terms of components. So she lost what, 7 points on the downgraded flips? I would have made her PCS 3 points lower (55) and her TES 7 points higher which would have given her 121 for the FS and wouldn't have changed the overall placement but would have been less controversial.